Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)
Pravu Sri Sri Kishore Banwari Jugma ... vs Ajit Kumar Nandi And Ors. on 10 December, 1937 cites

Sankaralinga Nadan vs Raja Rajeswara Dorai on 1 July, 1908

12. In his judgment of 4th December 1931, Mitter J. remarked that the present plaintiff might have his remedy in a separate suit. Possibly this is that suit. There are cases in which a trustee has in breach of the trust failed to carry on a suit and the beneficial owner has been allowed to come in, and the suit did not end with the withdrawal of the parties: Sankaralinga Nandan v. Rajeswara Dorai (1908) 81 Mad 236, Sham Kumari v. Raja Rameswara Singh Bahadur (1905) 32 Cal 27, Kunju Kombi Achan v. Ammu (1932) 19 AIR Mad 31 and Mt. Jaimala Kunwar v. Collector of Saharanpur . This is because the benamidar represents the real owner.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

V.K. Kunju Kombi Achan And Anr. vs Ammu Alias Parvathi Neithiar on 19 August, 1931

12. In his judgment of 4th December 1931, Mitter J. remarked that the present plaintiff might have his remedy in a separate suit. Possibly this is that suit. There are cases in which a trustee has in breach of the trust failed to carry on a suit and the beneficial owner has been allowed to come in, and the suit did not end with the withdrawal of the parties: Sankaralinga Nandan v. Rajeswara Dorai (1908) 81 Mad 236, Sham Kumari v. Raja Rameswara Singh Bahadur (1905) 32 Cal 27, Kunju Kombi Achan v. Ammu (1932) 19 AIR Mad 31 and Mt. Jaimala Kunwar v. Collector of Saharanpur . This is because the benamidar represents the real owner.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Kunwar Partab Singh vs Bhabuti Singh on 23 July, 1913

14. The next issue which may be considered is that of limitation. The Subordinate Judge has held that the suit is time-barred. This question has to be considered from the point of view of prayers (kha) and (ga). From that point of view the suit is not for setting aside a patni sale and the plaintiff is precluded by Order 23, Rule 1 (3), Civil P. C, from bringing a fresh suit for such relief. He must first have the order of withdrawal set aside whereupon the Suit No. 212 will revive: Partab Singh v. Bhabuti Singh (1913) 40 IA 182 at p. 192. Therefore so far as this point is concerned, the plaintiff's cause of action arose as from the date of the withdrawal of the Suit No. 212, viz. 11th March 1932, from which date he would get six years under Article 120, Limitation Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

A.V. Balakrishna Menon, Official ... vs Thirunilai Grama Veeraraghavan ... on 11 May, 1921

Even if Article 95 be applicable and the period should be three years the suit was filed within time on 24th March 1933: A.V. Balakrishna Menon v. Rangan Pattar (1922) 9 AIR Mad 189. It is not necessary to determine here whether there would be any bar to the appellant as representing the debuttar estate being substituted as plaintiff in Suit No. 212.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Abinas Chandra Majhi And Anr. vs Pratul Chandra Ghose on 17 January, 1928

Mr. P. R. Das for the appellant has relied on two cases, Promatha Nath Pal v. Mohini Mohan Pal (1920) 7 AIR Cal 435 and Abinas Chandra v. Pratul Chandra . In the first mentioned case the question was whether the present Section 66 or the old Section 317 should apply and it was not disputed that if Section 66 applied the suit was barred. To both cases no doubt the certified purchaser was a party but in neither case did he contest the suit, nor was it necessary to decide the question of benami in order to give the relief asked for in the suit.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next